Join The Debate!

Subject: Benefits versus societal acceptance

Thank you all for what is, by in large, a thoughtful discussion.

On Wed., 11/12/06, 11:55 PM, cal in minneapolis wrote the following: "Gay marriage is only about giving homosexuality a stamp of approval. Gay activists aren't really interested in marriage benefits. They just want acceptance into mainstream society. And they will stop at nothing until the church is silenced, because they don't want anybody saying that their behavior is wrong."

Initially, I'd like to clarify that this subject is really two subjects: (1) an effort to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and (2) more insidious efforts to take away contractual rights, property rights, etc., as is the case with the recent Constitutional Amendment in Virginia. Some states have only gone so far as to vote into law (1), but have not gone so far as to go after (2).

An example of (2): "Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

What has me so upset? What makes me question whether this is a free country? The part that says "or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." Legally speaking, this is extremely broad language that touches on many aspects of my life that have nothing to do with anyone else's marraige, raising children, a so-called "stamp of approval," etc.

I simply want to live my life, pay my taxes, be a good citizen and have certain assurances that my partner will be able to visit me in the hospital if I am sick and vice-versa, that I can leave my property to my partner and my parents and brother's family in a proportion of my choosing, and I want to be able to own property jointly with my partner.

As a gay man in a relationship for 8+ years, I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself, and I wholly disagree with cal in minneapolis. I honestly don't need or care for anyone else's stamp of approval. I do care when the government tries to meddle in my private affairs by saying that I don't have basic rights to contract, hospital visitation, naming beneficiaries in my will, etc.

What has happened in this debate, as best as I can tell, is that many are wrapped up in the emotion of marriage between a man and a woman and a fear that only a man and a woman can be "married" in the eyes of the law. But, I think what some have lost sight of is the basic U.S. Constitutional protections that all Americans deserve, regardless of their sexual orientation.

I think, for the next 10-20 years, "full marriage" for gay couples will not be available in a large majority of the states, and while I accept that political reality, I don't see why we can't agree to reinforce the concept that all people are entitled to basic protections, particularly the right to government enforcement of private contracts.

Even though Virginia has attempted to take these rights away from me, I have faith in the courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize that the recent measure passed in Virginia goes too far.

We shall see.